HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 15902 of 2026 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri S.K.Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 17th February, 2024 and consequential letter issued on 09.04.2026 by respondent no. 3 in purported exercise of power under Section 14 of the SARFEISI Act,2002. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a valid own tenure holder of the plot in question bearing Plot no. 401 Minjumla as he has purchased the property from the original tenure holder Baila Devi and khatauni/record of rights in that regard has been brought on record as annexure 10 to the petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that as per record of rights, the name of one Radheyshyam and Subhash came to be recorded over and above the land in question bearing Plot No. 401 Minjumla with the total area of 0.8232 hectares. He submits that in fact, the plot belongs to one Bhola who executed a will in favour of Radheyshyam and Subhash whose name got incorporated on the basis of the Will and thereafter they sold their property to the present borrower. The Will has also been placed before us along with instructions. Copy of the instructions is also supplied to the counsel for the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Mishra, Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sanjai Singh Aalha Chaurasiya And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, we find that there is a serious contest between the parties as to the identity of the mortgaged property while the petitioner places reliance upon certain revenue entries and claims valid Will and right in respect of the property in question. The bank says that the property belongs to the borrower who had borrowed loan and the bank had advanced loan after due verification. This all involves questions of facts and have to be determined under Section 17 of the SARFEISI Act, 2002 as to whether the bank has really proceeded as per the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the SARFEISI Act, 2002 after identifying the property. In our considered view, therefore petitioner should apply under Section 17 of the SARFEISI Act, 2002. Hence, we decline to interfere in the matter at this stage. 6. However we still provide that if petitioner moves a petition under Section 17 of the SARFEISI Act, 2002 along with stay application within a period of four weeks from today, the stay application shall be heard and disposed of may be through video conferencing by the Debt Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction of Allahabad within a further period of four weeks after due opportunity of hearing to the bank. The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of Section 17 petition itself within a further period of three months on merits. Any mortgaged sale that has taken place pursuant to which possession may be asked for by the bank in favour of the auction purchaser shall abide by the final outcome of the DRT petition. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of. May 5, 2026 Pratima WRIC No. 15902 of 2026 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad